“marginally significant”

When we performed the PCA analysis separately for the two periods, we still observed a significant divergence among tissues during development (⍴=0.95, p=0.0008) and observed a marginally significant convergence during ageing (⍴=-0.64, p=0.0596).

<0.1 We found that interaction between language and word entropy both for acoustic and phonemic features which were marginally significant (p=0.0596 for phonemic features and p=0.056 for acoustic features).

Mangrove sediment samples showed a similar pattern to the seagrass meadows and the presence of allochthonous sources had a marginally significant positive effect on the amount of CaCO 3 in the sediment ( t -value = 4.29, df = 1.81, p = 0.0596).

The difference between the diabetic control and the 1% OPE treated group was marginally significant at time points 60 min ( P = 0.0597).

The moderation by sex was marginally significant ( p = 0.0597), suggesting a possible difference between men and women regarding the association between VAI and BES score.

In intermittent noise, linking the AGCs reduced the SRT by 2.0 dB and was marginally significant after correction for multiple comparisons, t (9) = 3, p = .0598 after Tukey–Kramer adjustment).

Post-hoc comparisons showed a marginally significant change for the Washout group ( t = 3.00, p = 0.0598, Bonferroni-corrected), and a strongly significant effect following time ( t = 6.23, p < 0.001).

There was a main effect of fructose on expression of both Murf-1 ( F (1, 19) = 12.181, p = 0.00245) and MAFBx ( F (1, 17) = 4.897, p = 0.0409) and a marginally significant interaction between exercise and fructose on expression of Murf-1 ( F (1, 19) = 4.000, p = 0.05999).

Taxonomic diversity We found a marginally significant difference in species richness between MPAs and associated reference sites (ANOVA: F 1,102 = 12.00, p = 0.06), with higher richness inside MPAs across all years (Fig. 2 a).

Furthermore, the number of treatment lines after resistance to DTT ( p < 0.001) and ECOG PS ( p = 0.060, marginally significant) were independent prognostic factors for pOS ( Supplemental Table S3B ).

No significant interaction was found, but the interaction with sex was marginally significant (p=0.06).

The results showed significant (except for “bite” data for wild‐caught individuals) or marginally significant (“bite” data for wild‐caught individuals: p = 0.060) overdispersion, and a negative binomial GLM was built and tested the model using the glm.nb function in the R package MASS (Venables and Ripley 2002 ).

In general, the food type did not affect the percentage of Cd in any fraction also in the decontamination phase, although a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.06) was found for fraction S2, with a higher percentage of Cd in the Cd-N beetles.

Tukey’s post hoc tests revealed that ISC was consistently higher in males for all stimuli except for Flash, where it was marginally significant (Flash: p = 0.06; Wimpy: p = 0.03; DesMe: p = 10 −6 ; Arith: p = 0.003; Fract: p = 10 −4 ; StudT: p = 10 −4 ).

In addition, a marginally significant increase in larval densities in AM fungi-inoculated plots was observed in RWW-C2 ( F 1,18 = 3.85, P = 0.06).

Factors Impacting Gene Flow The Mantel test was significant only for the relationship between the genetic distance and the connectivity of sites by water flow ( r = 0.33, p = 0.003) and marginally significant for water type ( r = 0.16, p = 0.06), but neither for the geographic distance nor for the Euclidean distance of environmental parameters (Figure 4 ).

SCG 5 (51.2%) and other SCG (72.7%) (p = 0.002), and less likely to have infiltrates in the upper lung: SCG 3b (80.0%), 5 (95.3%), and 4 or 6a (100.0%), with the differences being marginally significant (p = 0.060).

The interaction between Visual Cue Trustworthiness and Task Version was marginally significant ( F (1,268) = 3.62, p = 0.06).

The association between motor attunement by itself and mutual romantic interest showed a moderate correlation and was marginally significant (r = 0.233, p = 0.06).

However, the simple slope for teachers with high-stress levels (84 th percentile) was negative and marginally significant, b = -0.14, SE = 0.07, p = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.00].

Furthermore, the same pattern, yet marginally significant, was observed in a node of the right cerebellum (rho=–0.43, p=0.06).

Based on one-tailed tests, results showed greater positive change in working memory, t(57)=1.69, p<.05, for the literacy group relative to the control, and a marginally significant difference in change in episodic memory, t(57)=1.62, p<.06, but not in verbal fluency, t< 1.

Flavanones showed a marginally significant trend ( p for trend =0.05), with the highest intake quartile approaching statistical significance (OR = 0 .74, 95% CI: 0.55–1.01, p = 0.06).

To assess HI effects independent of temperature modulation, a 4 (Area) × 2 (Sex) × 2 (Treatment; HI normothermic and sham) repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant Sex × Treatment interaction [ F (1,37) = 5.621, p < 0.05], as well as a marginally significant Sex effect [ F (1,37) = 3.748, p = 0.06] and Area × Sex interaction [ F (1,37) = 2.996, p = 0.09].

Results of the analyses on latency showed a significant difference between long-time priming ( M = 744 ms) and short-time priming ( M = 673 ms), F 1 (1,35) = 46.10, p < 0.01, η 2 = 0.56, F 2 (1,22) = 30.91, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.58, and a marginally significant, but unreliable 17-ms, difference between long-time concepts ( M = 717 ms) and short-time concepts ( M = 700 ms), F 1 (1,35) = 3.81, p = 0.06, η 2 = 0.10, F 2 (1,22) < 1, ns.